Dream
Well-Known Member
Sure thing
super sweet
I was just thinking that
Was King David Gay ?
- Thread starter GlorytoGod
- Start date
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Yet this was the man who "the LORD had sought out" as "a man after His own heart."
There has to be a way to make this work.....
The bit about Gay = NoNo appears in the OT (Genesis and Leviticus).
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Usually, in the bible, if two people have sex, it says they had sex. {I suppose one could then inquire whether being gay involves sex, then. *shrugs*}
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
What does the OT have to say about Lesbian homosexuality/gayness?
bob x
Well-Known Member
No, it was because he was dancing bare-butt. He did have an "ephod" (apron) covering his front, but he was showing off his beautiful booty, and Michal didn't think he should be doing that.
As for David and Jonathan: David was quite blatantly hetero, indeed rather a horndog. But Jonathan's crush on him was thoroughly physical: there is not a single passage in Samuel when the two are mentioned that does not specifically allude to the physicality of the feelings. When Jonathan first sees David, "his loins yearned for him". When they get together, Jonathan striips for David, and the text is specific that he took off everything. When Saul accuses Jonathan of an improper relationship with David, the accusation is "you have chosen him to the confusion of a mother's nakedness", which is a difficult idiom to interpret but I can hardly see how a sexual reading can be avoided. Jonathan makes an arrangement to send a coded signal to David so David can run away without having to come back to the palace: but then, David comes back anyway to give Jonathan one more hug. And when Jonathan dies, David says "most excellent was your love, surpassing the love of women". I do not see how the text could have been more explicit without veering into soft porn.
Dream
Well-Known Member
You could be right, however the 'confusion of a mother's nakedness' could also be referring to the mother's contract with Saul. Jonathan's mother's reproductive rights were leased to Saul in marriage, guaranteeing Jonathan 1st heir status and the throne after him. From Saul's perspective, Jonathan mocked and frustrated this arrangement by supporting a rival to the throne.Bobx said:
Two terms said:
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
What translation of the Bible are you referencing there, Bob x?
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
King James Version--1 Samuel 20:30
(Dream was referencing the next verse, 1 Sam 20:31, in reference to Jonathan's status as Saul's heir, that Jonathan's friendship with David wasn't "politically correct." Saul was stressing "partisanship," while Jonathan was stressing "non-partisanship" from the political perspective. Jonathan was practicing Jesus's advice to 'love your enemies' before Jesus even was around.)
bb been up late??
Sounds a lot like Clinton, 'I did not have sex with that woman' and then we have to define sex. So he was not gay, but that is not to say he didn't have a physical relationship with males.
All those who like to quote the favorite NoNo bits you are referring to should read the three paragraphs prior and the three paragraphs after in each case and see if you are ready to inforce those as well.
GlorytoGod
There is a River
- Messages
- 943
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I didnt start this thread in order to mock David just to see if there is any scriptural basis for David and Jason being involved in a homosexual relationship.
When I read this in the Bible I cant remember exactly where, but the first time I read it, it seemed pretty conclusive but I think thats what I wanted it to say, so I read it again and I think its inconclusive.
When I read this in the Bible I cant remember exactly where, but the first time I read it, it seemed pretty conclusive but I think thats what I wanted it to say, so I read it again and I think its inconclusive.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Women hardly exist in the old testament. When they say 5,000 from the family of X they are referring to 5,000 men of fighting age, they don't count the children, the women, or the old folk. Secondary folk they were, mostly for breeding and what they do amongst themselves doesn't account for much.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
From the relevant Bible passages, do we get any sense that either King David or Jonathan were uncomfortable about the erotic interest? Was Kind David repelled by it? Was Jonathan ashamed or concerned about being faulted for it? What can we say about their attitudes? The reason I ask is, supposedly the Bible endorses disapproval of homosexuality.
Was the anti-homosexual view not operative at the time of King David and Jonathan?
When was the moral precept developed and why?
Was the anti-homosexual view not operative at the time of King David and Jonathan?
When was the moral precept developed and why?
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Leviticus is the source for the moral code that is cited in support of the Christian objection to gay sex. It talks about women quite a bit and at length. The first twenty out of twenty three precepts of sexual morality in Leviticus 18 focus on women. Leviticus talks about women, but not in relation to homosexuality.
It is true that Leviticus seems to be written from a hetero male point of view. Seems like if people saw homosexuality as intrinsically morally wrong, there should have been some mention of lesbian sex. Maybe something along the lines of: "Don't let your wife or female slave partake in lesbian sex because it is an abomination in the eyes of G-d, who created man and woman to be together." Or something like that.
The "oversight" would suggest that lesbian love was not an issue. This weakens the notion that the Bible supports a general anti-gay stance.
Dream
Well-Known Member
Netti Netti said:
Some groups of women don't have proper names in OT, yet are very obviously present when you read the text. Others may not be obvious, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Agunah's are a good example:Wil said:
'Agunah' is a word not written in Torah, however Agunah are included under the heading of 'Widows' (I think). That gives them protection and representation in the laws. If there were a separate word for Lesbians it would be strange, because neither Agunahs are specificially mentioned nor Divorced. (A woman in the Old Treasury is either a maid, a wife, or a widow.) Following suit: there's also no separate word in the New Treasury either for divorced women or chained women. I think that they also are referred to as widows. What term do you suppose would refer to Lesbians? Any of the three?
~estrella~
Active Member
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Again, the roles in our society, we seem to see people in their roles, nothing else! Why is it not possible to really love somebody without that sexual or non-sexual thing? Why should it not be possible for a man to love a man without that sex-thing, a woman to love a woman without that sex-thing, a man to love a woman without that sex-thing, a woman to love a man without that sex-thing? Why these roles?
Roles of unique love between man-woman might be necessary for forming a functioning family etc... But this is concerning family, not concerning love going beyond family bounds. So what? Why think that Jonathan and David loved each other in sexual context? Why would they not be able to love each other without that bodily thing? I would also like that a man and a woman may be able to *really* love each other without being regarded as being "lovers" (=for the purpose of sex)!
bob x
Well-Known Member
No; as opposed to Saul, who was obviously distressed by it.
The author of Samuel, who is very matter-of-fact, obviously does not share the attitudes of the author of Leviticus. There is no such thing as the "viewpoint of the Bible", which is a collection of books written by quite diverse authors.
Because the physicality of the relationship is emphasized every single time the relationship comes up. I think it requires a very strained reading of the text to miss the point.~estrella~ said:
Dream
Well-Known Member
Of course its possible, however sometimes a man would have to be a Eunuch. Hanging out alone together makes attraction stronger or weaker, so sometimes it certainly isn't possible. Why should it be any different for homosexuals? While I don't see the sexual tension Bobx sees between Dave & Jon, I realize that if it were present it probably would not have gone unnoticed. They were very close friends.Estrella said:
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I think it's natural - not strictly a socially defined thing. I think it may be socially elaborated, though, especially in patriarchal societies where male dominance and sexism prevail.
I'd say we don't necessarily love someone because we want to have sex with them. It's because we appreciate who they are, which includes their body. We are our bodies. The person's gender is part of their identity. If we are comfortable with who we are, we may be less likely to feel that we will be engulfed by another person wanting us, which potentially includes being wanted physically.
On the other hand, seeing a person only as a body is not seeing them for who they are and is therfore incompatible with truly loving them. So maybe it's the fear of not being loved and supported that can be scary.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Saul was not known for his even-mindedness.
